Purpose: To evaluate the possibility of using peripheral-blood presurfactant protein B (Pro-SFTPB) for screening non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A total of 873 healthy volunteers and 165 lung cancer patients hospitalized in the Fifth People's Hospital of Dalian were tested Pro-SFTPB once every half year from January 2014 to September 2015. The healthy volunteers were also conducted spiral computed tomography (CT) examination once every year. The data were then com-pared and statistically analyzed. Results: The positive expression rate of Pro-SFTPB in NSCLC was significantly higher than that in healthy volunteers, and significantly higher in lung adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma; additionally, the expression rate was increased with the in-crease of smoking index, and the intergroup differences showed statistical signifi-cance (p≤0.05). The positive rate of newly diagnosed lung cancer was 29.55%, higher than healthy volunteers (22.34%), but there was no significant difference (p>0.05). Conclusion: Pro-SFTPB is over expressed in non-small cell lung cancer, especially in lung adenocarcinoma, but it can't be used as a clinical screening tool for lung cancer.
Background: Patients with difficult weaning who undergo mechanical ventilation are more likely to be at risk of reintubation and the sequential use of oxygen therapy after extubation is a concern for clinicians.Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the effects of transnasal high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy and non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV) on respiratory mechanics in patients with difficult weaning.Methods: The present study was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. Twenty-nine patients with difficult weaning off invasive mechanical ventilation from the Department of Critical Care Medicine, The
Background:In traditional Volume-Controlled Ventilation (VCV) mode, the creation of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery may lead to Ventilator-Associated Lung Injury (VALI). Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume Guarantee (PCV-VG) mode ensures providing adequate oxygen supply to patients while reducing the risk of lung injury. Methods:Eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were searched in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Sino Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wan-Fang MED without language restriction up to March 2019. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was airway peak pressure (Ppeak) at 30, 60 or 90 mins after complete CO2 insufflation. This meta-analysis was followed the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Results:Finally, 9 articles were included. The Ppeak in the PCV-VG group was lower than that in the VCV group, and the difference was statistically significant at 30mins [Mean Difference (MD)= -3.55, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)= -5.13 to -1.98, I2=83%], 60mins [MD= -5.76, 95%CI= -8.15-3.36, I2=93%], 90 mins [MD= -4.59, 95%CI= -5.43-3.74, I2=30%] after complete CO2 insufflation. Meanwhile, PCV-VG mode could effectively reduce airway mean pressure (Pmean) and improve dynamic compliance (Cdyn) of patients after complete CO2 insufflation in laparoscopic surgery compared to VCV mode. However, no significant difference was found in PetCO2, HR, MAP, PH, PaO2, and PaCO2 between the two-ventilation modes. Conclusions: PCV-VG mode are superior to VCV mode in providing adequate oxygenation at lower airway peak pressure and greater dynamic compliance in patients under laparoscopic surgery.
Background: Interferon (IFN) is widely used in clinical practice and nebulization inhalation is one of the commonly used routes of administration. However, nebulization drugs such as interferon-α (IFN-α) with large molecular weights may deposit in the membrane of the breathing filters, causing its resistance to gradually increase. Thus, our study explores the effect of IFN-α and other nebulization drugs on the resistance of breathing circuit filters under invasive mechanical ventilation.Methods: We divided 96 breathing filters into eight groups. The baseline group was not treated while the blank group was installed but were not nebulized. The remaining groups received jet nebulized or vibrating nebulized with either normal saline, Combivent, Amphotericin B, or IFN-α at a frequency of once every 12 hours separately and were removed from the breathing circuit after 24 hours. The resistance of the filter of each group was then measured and statistical comparisons were made.Results: Filter resistance of the IFN-α jet nebulization group was greater than that of the other groups, and there were statistical differences except for the Amphotericin B jet nebulization group. Comparison of the resistance [cmH 2 O/(L•s)] of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the baseline group showed 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.26 (2.03, 2.40), P=0.037; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the blank group showed 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.11 (1.98, 2.27), P=0.003; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the normal saline group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.16 (2.08, 2.32), P=0.023; of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the Combivent jet nebulization group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.18 (2.14, 2.27), P=0.018; and of the IFN-α jet nebulization group vs. the Amphotericin B jet nebulization group: 2.56 (2.40, 2.68) vs. 2.33 (2.05, 2.45), P=0.221. The effect of jet nebulization and vibrating mesh nebulization on the resistance of breathing filters showed no significant statistical difference.Conclusions: Jet nebulization with IFN-α significantly increased the resistance of the breathing filter within 24 hours and there was no significant difference in filter resistance between jet nebulization and vibrating mesh nebulization of IFN-α or Amphotericin B.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.